How do you Define GOD?

I truly believe - non of us knows the truth.
We all tryna see the light of it all right?
Well light can be good and can also be bad for some.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

the singularity. not big bang. the IDEA that everything was once one.
zero evidence.

---

The big bang is evidence of the singularity, do you even know what the theory states? You basically just said: yes rain exists, but clouds? ehhh not so much.

Quote:

---

gravity is not completely understood. so this may or may not be true.

---

Gravity not being fully comprehend again, doesn't negate it's existence, what is your point?

Quote:

---

you are beginning to sound like a fundamentalist who gets mad when his faith is challenged.

---

You're beginning to sound presumptious as seeing how this is far from a challenge for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mumm Ra

YES.
most people do actually -
if you base all your decisions on base desires, emotions, impulses and automated responses then you don't really have free will, do you?

you don't think there's a path of 'goodness' (for lack of better term) to be followed?
try living completely irrationally - try eating nothing but mcdonalds for a year - try punching random strangers -
and see what 'hellfire' you bring upon yourself

so yes - we have free will, even free will to live like a savage if we choose

---

Acting like a savage is still the act of choosing to do so. A choice or exercise of free will. If this free will is mandated- my point still stands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Of course, even if you had free will beyond what he has allowed, being omnipotent means he can commit logical contradictions.
It's kind of like the Augustinian paradox, "Can God cast a stone so heavy, God himself cannot lift it?"


It's already acknowledged that since he is both omnipresent and omnipotent he can.
If he exists in one form which cannot and another which he can, well...

God isn't something you can really put a logical paradox on.
Humans and other material entities on the other hand, you can.
A better way to ask your question would be "If God is all knowing, how can I have free will? Surely I am not free to do anything outside of his knowledge" but even that falls to the previous scenerio I mentioned.


That leaves a salty taste in most people's mouths.
They'd rather have an answer that seems rational.
The problem is a God who can literally create from nothing isn't bound by our reason.

And that will continue to piss people off for years to come.

---

You're describing what's called the omnipotence paradox, which fails for several reasons. This is like asking if god can draw a square circle which makes the question (and paradox) meaningless.

So, god creates this stone that he cannot lift at the moment of it's creation. Seeing as how god is omnipotent he can later alter the stone or himself so that he can then lift it. If he alters the stone, it is no longer the same stone he originally created, if he makes himself stronger in order to lift the original created stone, you can argue he was not previously truly omnipotent in the logical sense.

Another way of dealing with this question is as such: god doesn't operate within our understanding of the laws of reality. it follows that he created the laws, why does he have to obey them? This line of thought only pushes the problem back a step where you must then ask "can god create an object even he cannot transmute?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

The big bang is evidence of the singularity, do you even know what the theory states? You basically just said: yes rain exists, but clouds? ehhh not so much.

no. i never even negated the big bang nor the singularity. my point is that you don't have evidence to support the theory of a singularity yet you have faith in the theory just because it makes sense. i'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

since you cannot prove that the singularity existed, how is it any different than calling the universe proof that there is a God?




Gravity not being fully comprehend again, doesn't negate it's existence, what is your point?

ever consider that you don't fully comprehend God?



You're beginning to sound presumptious as seeing how this is far from a challenge for me.

---

as for the paradoxes you stated, God doesn't have arms so idk what lifting or creating a stone or drawing a circle has anything to do with anything.

i mean if you are talking about the man with a beard who sits on a cloud...then you might be on to something. but i think that the theists in this thread are talking about something a little more sophisticated.




rollo is on fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

Acting like a savage is still the act of choosing to do so. A choice or exercise of free will. If this free will is mandated- my point still stands.

---

impulsive actions are not initiated by free will. once you let go of the steering wheel (choice) everything that happens after was not of your will. your only action was to release control. whether you crash or safely roll to a stop is not up to you.

but in many cases, people act on base desires without even choosing to do so because a choice would imply a knowledge of options.

The question of proof of God is a funny one.

The existence/agreement of what is proof is highly debatable. One says its everywhere, another will tell you nowhere. Perception is ultimately non-transferrable. I can respect an atheistic mindset as you're free to think and perceive as you will but I'd be lying if I was to ever tell anyone I truly understood it. The irony is that an atheist will most likely feel the say way.

I just have no qualms about accepting such things on faith and faith alone. Humans have only very recently had verifiable proof of DNA but they've had the double-helix snakes as symbol in one form or another since at least the times of Babylon, point being that our intuition collectively gets there before the facts do. To of course "discover" what's really been there the whole time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WUnded Fox

as for the paradoxes you stated, God doesn't have arms so idk what lifting or creating a stone or drawing a circle has anything to do with anything.

---

I'm sorry to hear you didn't comprehend what was written about the omnipotence paradox. It's well known and I'm certain you can find more information on it's failure to substantiate anything more than linguistic nonsense.

Quote:

---

i mean if you are talking about the man with a beard who sits on a cloud...then you might be on to something. but i think that the theists in this thread are talking about something a little more sophisticated.

---

I've never made the ghost of a claim to anything of the sort. It's just as you say, the theists in this thread pulling shit out of their asses.

Quote:

---

no. i never even negated the big bang nor the singularity. my point is that you don't have evidence to support the theory of a singularity yet you have faith in the theory just because it makes sense. i'm just pointing out the hypocrisy.

---

I've provided evidence, I'll be more than happy to supply more.

Quote:

---

impulsive actions are not initiated by free will. once you let go of the steering wheel (choice) everything that happens after was not of your will. your only action was to release control. whether you crash or safely roll to a stop is not up to you.

but in many cases, people act on base desires without even choosing to do so because a choice would imply a knowledge of options.

---

Granted. Yet at any moment the human being in question can choose to once again exercise his god given mandated free will. Just because he has chosen not to use it, doesn't mean it is no longer there. My point still stands.

from what i know the usa has these percents of certain religions
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4%
(last updated 2007) do not be offended by these results! this s just what government officials think....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ODB4EVER

from what i know the usa has these percents of certain religions
Protestant 51.3%, Roman Catholic 23.9%, Mormon 1.7%, other Christian 1.6%, Jewish 1.7%, Buddhist 0.7%, Muslim 0.6%, other or unspecified 2.5%, unaffiliated 12.1%, none 4%
(last updated 2007) do not be offended by these results! this s just what government officials think....

---

Here is the latest, most up to date information:
The American Religious Identification Survey http://livinginliminality.files.word...eport_2008.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

I'm sorry to hear you didn't comprehend what was written about the omnipotence paradox. It's well known and I'm certain you can find more information on it's failure to substantiate anything more than linguistic nonsense.


I've never made the ghost of a claim to anything of the sort. It's just as you say, the theists in this thread pulling shit out of their asses.



I've provided evidence, I'll be more than happy to supply more.



Granted. Yet at any moment the human being in question can choose to once again exercise his god given mandated free will. Just because he has chosen not to use it, doesn't mean it is no longer there. My point still stands.

---

Two things:

1) Please provide actual evidence that the 'big bang' and 'singularity being fact and not just theory and perhaps your argument will have more ground then the average (new term) sky-god religionist.

2)How can you take a stance in an argument against the existance of god and then go on to say that free will is a 'god-given' attribute of man, sounds just a little contradictionary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regulas

Two things:

1) Please provide actual evidence that the 'big bang' and 'singularity being fact and not just theory and perhaps your argument will have more ground then the average (new term) sky-god religionist..

---

Firstly, you've seemed to have confused theorem with hypothesis. "Just a theory" holds no water. Gravity is "just a theory".

I will again outline the major evidence which supports the big bang theory:

The universe had a beginning

Cosmic microwave background radiation

Abundance of light elements in our universe

Hubble's Law

Quote:

---

2)How can you take a stance in an argument against the existance of god and then go on to say that free will is a 'god-given' attribute of man, sounds just a little contradictionary.

---

I haven't taken that stance, I granted the claim in order to show it's fallacy. What is being implied is exactly the opposite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

I'm sorry to hear you didn't comprehend what was written about the omnipotence paradox. It's well known and I'm certain you can find more information on it's failure to substantiate anything more than linguistic nonsense.

i understood it just fine. i'm just trying to figure out why you think its valid. this is the second time you have stated that because an idea is popular then it makes it true.if we were debating the existence of a magical MAN, then i could see your point. but thats not the case.


I've never made the ghost of a claim to anything of the sort. It's just as you say, the theists in this thread pulling shit out of their asses.

if thats how you define sophistication...

I've provided evidence, I'll be more than happy to supply more.

you have yet to provide anything in terms of evidence or proof of a singularity.

Granted. Yet at any moment the human being in question can choose to once again exercise his god given mandated free will. Just because he has chosen not to use it, doesn't mean it is no longer there. My point still stands.

and what's your point again? cause nobody is denying the existence of free will when its not in use. when you let go of the wheel, you are not driving. grab the wheel, you are driving again.
tho some people have trouble grabbing the wheel or even know there is a wheel to grab.x

---

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DRUNKENDRAGON

Firstly, you've seemed to have confused theorem with hypothesis. "Just a theory" holds no water. Gravity is "just a theory".

I will again outline the major evidence which supports the big bang theory:

The universe had a beginning

Cosmic microwave background radiation

Abundance of light elements in our universe

Hubble's Law





I haven't taken that stance, I granted the claim in order to show it's fallacy. What is being implied is exactly the opposite.

---

gravity is JUST A THEORY. thats why scientists are still trying to PROVE their model. the EFFECTS of what we CALL GRAVITY are real but the cause of this effect have not been proven. mostly because we still don't know what gives matter its mass. mass is a fundamental part of the current gravity theory.

theory- a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

just like big bang is a theory.



then you claim that hubble's law is proof of the big bang when all it does is describe the velocity and distribution of the stars in the universe.

thats like saying boyles law is proof that i farted when all it does is describe the behavior of gases.

you have yet to explain how a description of current states of the universe, micro radiation and light elements PROVES anything. you are describing the the smell of the fart and trying to pin it on me.



like i said yesterday, go back and study then come back.

ok godboy